The IAEA Can’t Rule Out That Terrorists Have The Missing Kinshasa Nuclear Fuel Rod

The International Atomic Energy Agency has confirmed that a second fuel rod from the nuclear research reactor in Kinshasa is missing. I had this report in 2002.

Spokesman Mark Gwozdecky says the International Atomic Energy Agency has no idea where the fuel element is.

And Mr. Gwozdecky says the IAEA cannot rule out the possibility it is in the hands of terrorists.

“We simply don't know where the fuel rod is and any number of possibilities exist and we wouldn't discount any one.”

Mr. Gwozdecky says this is not the first case in which radioactive materials have gone missing. Another fuel rod that disappeared from the Kinshasa reactor was recovered in 1998 by authorities in Italy from criminals who were attempting to sell it.

But the IAEA spokesman says last September's terrorist attacks in the United States have increased the agency's concern over all incidents of missing nuclear material and the security of all nuclear facilities, including the one in the Democratic Republic of the Congo.

“In the era of post 9/11, we're concerned about every target in the world today and that's why we're working as strenuously as we are with all countries, but in particular with this country (Democratic Republic of Congo). It's been the recipient of many, many expert missions from this agency (IAEA) to help them beef up the safety and security around this plant and they are cooperating and working to do that.”

The Congo is not the only African country that has attracted the attention of international nuclear inspectors.

IAEA experts have also recently visited Uganda, where authorities in April discovered a container of radioactive Cobalt-60. Mr. Gwozdecky declines to discuss details of that incident.

But the IAEA's director-general (Mohamed El Baradei) revealed in a published statement this week the material appeared to have been stolen for illicit resale. Experts say Cobalt-60, typically used in medical devices and industrial irradiators, is the type of material most likely to be used by terrorists in a radiological or so-called dirty bomb.

As for the low-enriched uranium fuel rod missing from the Kinshasa reactor, spokesman Gwozdecky asserts it does not pose a great risk.

“I wouldn't exaggerate the risk involved here. I'd just point out again that the fuel elements that we are talking about here are low enriched uranium. They're of essentially no use in constructing a nuclear explosive device and would be a poor choice for a radiological (dirty) bomb.”

International researchers at Stanford University have compiled what is considered the world's most complete database of lost, stolen or misplaced nuclear materials. The database has 830 entries. Some three-quarters of the entries, 643 to be precise, involve incidents of smuggling.

Next: Congolese authorities are in denial despite what the IAEA says.

AfroNuke: An International Embarrassment As Well As A Potential Hazard

A week later, following leads turned up in my initial report, I had this shocker: another nuclear fuel rod is missing from the troubled research reactor in Congo-Kinshasa and international authorities say they cannot exclude the possibility it is in the hands of terrorists.

A second fuel rod manufactured for the nuclear research reactor at the Universityof Kinshasa is unaccounted for.

It was previously reported that one rod made for the controversial facility disappeared and was recovered from criminals in Italy by police in 1998, in an undercoveroperation.

But nuclear industry sources say at the time of that incident, inspectors for the International Atomic Energy Agency, the IAEA, also raised questions about a second radioactive fuel element that was apparently lost.

The fact that a second fuel rod might be missing had not been previously reported.

However, a spokesman for the IAEA, responding to my inquiry, has now confirmed the loss of the second element. But spokesman Mark Gwozdecky downplays the loss and potential danger.

“Although the whereabouts of that single fuel element are not known, we would say that one element would be of essentially no use in constructing a nuclear device, nuclear explosive device, and it would also be a poor choice for constructing a radiological or so-called dirty bomb.”

The University of Kinshasa first went on line with a 50-kilowatt research reactor in 1959. That reactor was replaced with a more modern, one megawatt facility which was powered up in 1972. Both reactors were made by General Atomics, a US firm that also made the fuel elements for the research facility.

Officials of General Atomics, backed by the IAEA, say the missing fuel rod, like the one recovered by authorities, is considered low-enriched. That is to say, it contains between19-point-seven and 19-point-nine percent fissionable U-235. The threshhold defining highly-enriched uranium is a flat 20 percent.

It is unclear how the fuel rods disappeared from Kinshasa. The current Director of the reactor has told reporters it could have happened when his predecessor lent out keys to the facility, where visitors say security has been minimal.

It is also unclear how the one rod recovered in Italy was brought into Europe. That rod had never been irradiated or used. But industry sources say when the element was retrieved it was apparent someone had tampered with it. The sources say an effort had been made to cut into the cladding around the uranium fuel core.

The IAEA says all the other fuel rods made for the Kinshasa reactor, both fresh or unused elements and spent or used rods, are otherwise accounted for.

Spokesman Gwozdecky says the count has been re-verified during annual inspections. He also reveals several expert missions have been sent to Kinshasa in recent years to perform technical inspections to ensure the safe operation of the facility.

Nevertheless, Mr. Gwozdecky says more progress and further improvement are required to ensure the reactor poses no dangers.

Industry sources assert the Congo reactor is considered a kind of international embarrassment as well as a potential hazard. However they suggest authorities in Kinshasa have resisted, as a point of national pride, efforts to shut down or impose stricter controls on the facility.

A US government official tells me that talks are under way in an effort to retrieve the spent or used fuel rods stored at the reactor site. The International Nuclear Safety Center fact file on the Kinshasa reactor says 58 spent fuel rods are currently in storage.

Next: The IAEA cannot rule out the possibility the missing fuel rod is in the hands of terrorists.

Nuclear Terror in the Heart of Africa???

In the early months following the 9/11 terrorist attacks, like many reporters here, I probed our vulnerability to further incidents. Because of my interest in Africa and the coincidental visit of a friend and fellow journalist who knew about the topic, I came up with this piece in late June 2002 and my investigation led to new disclosures: US officials say it is no secret that terrorists would like to obtain weapons of mass destruction, especially nuclear weapons. They also say it is no secret that terrorists are on the lookout for so-called "soft" targets --- those considered at low-risk of a terrorist strike. Are there soft targets among the world's nuclear facilities? There is one reactor in sub-Saharan Africa where the security is questionable.

The Federation of American Scientists calls highly-enriched uranium of the type used in nuclear reactors "the material of choice for terrorists seeking nuclear weapons." It also says the uranium found at small research facilities is at greater risk of diversion, and should have a higher priority for elimination, than supplies found in nuclear weapons bunkers or processing plants.

So there was alarm four years ago, when Italian authorities recovered a highly-enriched uranium fuel rod from an organized crime group in Italy that was trying to sell it. The source of the fuel rod was not, however, Russia, or any of the other former Soviet states where the security of nuclear materials has in recent years been a source of deep concern.

Instead, this fuel rod came from a nuclear research reactor in Kinshasa, capital of the Democratic Republic of Congo, one of the least stable countries in Africa.

Journalist Michela Wrong has visited the one megawatt reactor at the University of Kinshasa. She found rusted gates, fastened by a simple padlock, leading to the reactor. She saw only two guards, and gained entrance merely by signing her name in a book.

“I think it's an extremely worrying situation there. I mean, it's almost surreal the security conditions there, and I really emerged from there thinking I couldn't quite believe what I had seen.”

Ms. Wrong, author of "In The Footsteps Of Mr. Kurtz, Living On The Brink Of Disaster In Mobutu's Congo," interviewed the director of the reactor. He said he believed the fuel rod may have been stolen when his predecessor lent out his keys to the facility.

“As we were chatting away about the history of the reactor, he revealed, really quite casually, that one day they had realized one of the rods in the reactor had gone missing, and he had learned subsequently that it had turned up in Sicily in the hands of the Mafia, that it had been reclaimed by the Italian police.”

The International Atomic Energy Agency, the IAEA, acknowledges one of the Kinshasa reactor's fuel rods did go missing. But downplaying the potential risk, it reported the rod contained low-enriched uranium with a fissionable U-235 content of 19-point-nine percent --- just below the 20 percent threshold that defines highly-enriched uranium.

But the International Nuclear Safety Center, operated by the US Department of Energy and dedicated to improving reactor safety worldwide, says the Kinshasa facility's fuel rods are, in fact, all 20 percent or highly-enriched.

Nevertheless, the IAEA is clearly concerned about security issues at the Kinshasa reactor, a Triga Mark Two type, built in 1970. Just two years ago, the director-general of the IAEA described the facility as one requiring attention. The official said an agency mission sent to inspect the reactor reported soil erosion around the facility that could soon threaten safety.

Pentagon sources tell me, authorities in Kinshasa have approached the United States about removing spent nuclear fuel rods stored at the reactor. The International Nuclear Safety Center reports there are 58 such rods in storage. However, there is no indication any rods have yet been taken away.

The Kinshasa situation is not the only one in Africa involving radioactive material that has garnered international attention.

Earlier this year, the IAEA reported sending another mission to the continent -- this time to Uganda. There, they assisted in securing what an agency statement described only as a"radioactive source" containing a significant amount of Cobalt-60. It provided no additional details, but Cobalt-60 is considered by experts to be the type of material terrorists might favor in creating a non-nuclear, but radioactive "dirty bomb."

Next: We discover another fuel rod is missing.

Coming Up

How a look at the possible threat posed by an unsecured nuclear reactor in Africa uncovered evidence of just how insecure the facility was and how international authorities sought to cover it up.

My Mixed CD of Life: Africa and Beyond

I am very pleased to introduce a guest blogger for your reading enjoyment. It’s my daughter, Katie, no longer a kid but one of the 'American-Africans' (a phrase coined by one of my sons) in the family whose formative years were spent sub-Saharan.

I can remember sitting on the veranda at my old house in Kenya, my bare toes tickling the stiff dry grass while the waning notes of Jimi Hendrix’s “The Wind Cries Mary” wafted through the air among clouds of my father’s cigarette smoke. It seems to me that every person has those one or two songs that bring them directly back to their childhood – and for me that song is “The Wind Cries Mary.” Every time I hear that song I am transported back to that day and for a few moments I can almost let go enough to be as carefree as I was then.

As a child growing up in Africa with a TV that only had two channels, news and more news, I had a very unique experience in the way that I was exposed to music. I was not being constantly stimulated by different forms of media and therefore have very specific influences. I believe that is why I have very distinct and vibrant memories of the songs from my childhood. My father incessantly played classic rock, as a result of this my brothers and I grew to appreciate it and imprint it onto our musical souls. This love of all classic rock from the Rolling Stones, Grateful Dead, Donovan to Janis Joplin and Jefferson Airplane lead to an obsession with the era of the sixties and all the counterculture that went along with it.

I moved back to the U.S. as a freshman in high school and HATED my life. I was a quirky theatre kid with an old soul and a love of the sixties who had just moved from Africa; needless to say I stuck out like a sore thumb. I had never experienced exclusion. I always fit in wherever I went and for some reason this just wasn’t clicking. So I did what any confused teenager would do – I turned to drugs and got really into Pink Floyd!

This period of my life is a juxtaposition in which I am aware of the irresponsible things that I did; however I have no regrets. I explored all the corners of my mind and learned much about myself. When I hear any song from “Dark Side of the Moon,” in particular the song “Time,” I am brought back to a place in time where I was just beginning to discover life and play around with the roles that I would take in it. I am able to smell the thick, sweet smoke of patchouli incense in my nostrils and can picture myself sprawled out across my bed contemplating life and all its meaning. I start to feel that feeling where it’s like my life is spinning wildly out of control and I am loving every second of it as I feel I have nothing to lose.

On the contrary my parents saw that I had everything to lose and clamped down, moving me to private school (Washington Waldorf School). I of course saw this as a personal sabotage of my life. I made it my mission to rebel against anything that my parents wanted me to do or be. I grew out crazy dreadlocks and wore dark eye makeup, spiked jewelry, and wild clothing to match. Enter the punk stage of my life! The music from this stage of my life fills me with a totally liberating feeling.

It was during this stage that I realized the only person I had to please was myself and I could question anyone I wanted to, including my parents. When I hear the hard pounding bass and drums of the Dropkick Murphys “Barroom Hero,” I can distinctly remember cold November nights waiting for the Metro feeling immensely satisfied while my whole body ached from being thrown (willingly) into circle pits and I stood there proud to have held my own. I again get that invincible feeling that although I am 5 feet 4, I could kick anyone’s ass.

Over the next year or so I had a bit of maturing to do. Until this point in time I constantly felt that I had something to prove. I finally got over that. I took off the dark makeup and just let myself be the random conglomeration of things and styles that I had become. I was about to graduate high school, I was in love and I felt on top of the world. The song that brings me back to the feeling of the world being at my fingertips is Ice Cube’s “It was a good day.” I am flooded with memories of driving around with my friends on a perfect day in Spring through tunnels of pink cherry blossom trees and asking myself, “Could life get any better?”

Looking back, I have yet to top that day. This next phase is one of heartbreak and lessons learned. Young love dies hard, just as my relationship did. To this day when I hear Annie Lennox’s ”No More I Love You’s”, I want to cry. It takes me to a place where I learned that sometimes in life you lose people you really care about, and that’s just the way it is. Not everything is meant to be. Wow, what a bitter lesson that was to swallow.

Finally, I come to where I am today: happy, healthy and content. I am at a place in my life where I am about to transfer and finish up school. I have a rough blueprint for what I would like to happen with my life, and I’m really excited about it! I also feel that although I am just 21, I am still an old soul who has been through a lot (just about every identity phase possible) and with each stage of life I have created a piece of myself and taken it with me as I have moved on and grown up. For this part of my life I choose the song “Wildflowers” by Tom Petty as it fills me with a sense of being whole and complete, like I’m no longer searching for who I’m supposed to be. I just am who I am and I cannot wait to find out what songs are still to come on my mixed CD of life.

Mr. Rumsfeld Goes To Guantanamo (And I Go Along)

And while we're on the topic of war crimes and prisoners... Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld paid a brief visit to the US Navy Base at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba in January 2002 for a first-hand look at the detention facilities for Taleban and al-Qaida captives held there. I was among the small group of reporters who accompanied Mr. Rumsfeld.

It was a hot, sunny but breezy day at Guantanamo Bay as the Defense Secretary arrived for his brief, three-hour visit.

But even before his plane touched down and he boarded a bus and then a ferry for his first-hand look, Mr. Rumsfeld had already made clear the Bush administration's position was unambiguous. It continues to regard the 158 Taleban and al-Qaida detainees held at the base in Cuba not as prisoners of war but as unlawful combatants.

Mr. Rumsfeld spoke to reporters aboard his aircraft shortly after take-off from Washington.

“They are not P-O-W's. They will not be determined to be P-O-W's.”

Instead, Mr. Rumsfeld calls them dangerous terrorist killers --- and clearly not members of anything close to resembling a legitimate military force.

It is a point he reiterated later after touring Camp X-Ray, as the detention facility is called.

“The characteristics of the individuals that have been captured is that they are unlawful combatants, not lawful combatants. That is why they are characterized as detainees and not prisoners of war. The al-Qaida are so obviously a part of a terrorist network as opposed to being part of an army. They didn't go around with uniforms, with their weapons in public display, with insignia, and behave in a manner that an Army behaves in. They went around like terrorists and that's a very different thing.”

The distinction is an important one because under the Geneva Conventions, prisoners-of-war have distinct legal rights that would affect the ability of officials to interrogate them. They would also have to be released after the end of hostilities.

Mr. Rumsfeld says he did not make his trip, accompanied by four US Senators, to check up on the conditions under which the detainees are being held. He says he already knew everything was being done humanely and properly and called the effort first-rate.

He says that instead he focused his talks on the construction of further detention facilities and says he believes more permanent cells than the current temporary, open-air facilities are needed.

No detainee attempted to speak to Mr. Rumsfeld as he toured Camp X-Ray. While he was there, though, a loud-speaker blared the traditional Muslim call to prayer for the al-Qaida and Taleban captives, who come from 25 different countries.

Reporters were kept several hundred meters away during the Defense Secretary's visit to the cells and adjacent medical facilities for the detainees.

But Mr. Rumsfeld says ongoing interrogations of the detainees are proving fruitful "to a considerable degree." He says there have been terrorist activities halted and disrupted before more people could be killed.

The United States launched Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan against the Taleban and al-Qaida after suicide terrorists attacked the World Trade Center and the Pentagon last September, killing some three-thousand people.

Getting Charles Taylor: The Hidden Reward Exposed

Liberian warlord and later Liberian President Charles Taylor is on trial in the Hague for war crimes. He fled to Nigeria in 2003, after the Nigerian government offered asylum to Taylor as a temporary measure to end the bloodshed in Liberia and secure a peaceful transition to a new government. He remained in exile in Nigeria until March 2006, when the Nigerian government agreed to a request from Liberia’s government that he be surrendered to the Special Court in Sierra Leone. He was detained by Nigerian police and sent back to Liberia, where he was taken into custody by U.N. forces and transferred to the Special Court in Freetown. That’s the background. In November 2003, President Bush signed legislation to fund military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan --- but the legislation also included a provision for a reward for Taylor’s capture. I broke the story after receiving a tip and then plowing through the lengthy bill. The next morning, apparently after hearing my story on VOA’s Africa service, Taylor’s residence in exile was surrounded by guards, fearful of a raid by unknown forces out to nab Taylor. At that point, the story was picked up by others. I remember one news agency called the U.S. embassy in Lagos for comment and the spokesperson there was caught by surprise. Even the State Department the next day was struggling for a response. Here’s the original story:

Buried deep within the multi-billion dollar bill signed by the President is a provision authorizing payment of two-million dollars in reward money for what is termed "anindictee of the Special Court for Sierra Leone."

The indictee is not named in the legislation. But government and Congressional sources confirm that it is Charles Taylor, who was charged by the UN backed court in June for his alleged support of rebels in Sierra Leone.

Officials of the State Department and the Pentagon were not immediately available to comment on any plans for implementing the bounty offer.

But late last month, the State Department's then-top Africa official, Walter Kansteiner, said Mr. Taylor should face justice before the Special Court. He also disclosed the United States had held talks with Nigeria, where Mr. Taylor has been living in exile, about bringing him before the court.

Mr. Taylor was forced into exile in Nigeria in August under heavy US pressure. His departure paved the way for deployment of peacekeeping forces, including a US military contingent that provided support to African troops sent in to restore calm.

Mr. Taylor has been accused of seeking to influence events in Liberia from exile. But Mr. Kansteiner told reporters that every day that Mr. Taylor was out of the country, his influence was diminishing.

However he said Mr. Taylor, in his words, still needed to be watched "like a hawk" --- especially by Nigeria.

The US reward offer for his capture follows an offer earlier this year by a private British-American security group to kidnap Mr. Taylor and bring him before the court in Sierra Leone.

Northbridge Services Group claimed in a July 22nd statement that it had been asked to assist "certain local organizations" in enforcing the court's indictments.

News reports said the company had held talks with rebels opposed to Mr. Taylor before he went into exile. The firm was subsequently reported as being under investigation by officials in both Britain and the United States for possible violations of UN arms embargoes.

In response to the reported investigations, Northbridge said its proposal for acting as what it termed a "constabulary force" for the Special war crimes Court to bring Mr. Taylor to justice remained in force. But it stressed it would not take part in any activities unless sanctioned by the United Nations. It said it would never violate UN sanctions.

Representatives of the company failed to respond to a request for comment on the new bounty offer.

The Pentagon and The Media

The New York Times yesterday (Sunday) published a major investigative report into the Pentagon information apparatus that has used retired officers who are military analysts for the news media to generate favorable coverage of the administration’s wartime performance. Frankly, that should come as no surprise. The Pentagon is concerned about all aspects of media coverage and the number of personnel devoted to courting the media outnumbers actual media representatives by at least 50-to-1. I should know as I spent four years covering the Defense Department. Despite these favorable odds, the media minds at the Pentagon occasionally screw up. In fact the last report I filed from the Pentagon, on June 29, 2004, focused on just such a mistake. It came as defense officials were expecting what they believed would be a big court victory in the war on terrorism. But they were caught off-guard by U.S. Supreme Court rulings that terrorist suspects held by the military, both foreign nationals and American, have the right to challenge their detention in the U.S. court system.

The Supreme Court rulings have been described by civil rights groups as a defeat for the Bush administration and its assertion of sweeping powers to indefinitely hold what it calls enemy combatants in the war on terror.

Since the decisions were handed down, Pentagon officials have had little to say other than to tell reporters the rulings are being reviewed by defense department lawyers.

That is because the Pentagon was expecting an endorsement of administration policies and was caught off-guard by the unfavorable rulings, which defense officials now admit came as a complete surprise.

The officials' admissions are confirmed by an internal document (which I obtained from a military source) which outlined a communications strategy to be followed by Pentagon and other government spokesman in responding to the court.

The document was written last week and was based on the assumption that key cases would be decided in favor of the Bush administration.

For example, in the cases brought by foreign-born Guantanamo detainees seeking access to U.S. courts, the planning document anticipated a close five-to-four decision but stated, quoting now, "we will treat any decision short of outright rejection as a victory."

In fact, the Supreme Court ruled six-to-three against the administration, declaring non-U.S. citizens held at the United States naval base at Guantanamo Bay can appeal to federal courts to argue that they are being unlawfully held.

In the case of U.S.-born terrorist suspect Yaser Hamdi, held at a military base in South Carolina, the administration's planning document also predicted a favorable decision in what was termed "a clear-cut Prisoner of War case."

As it turned out, the justices ruled eight-to-one that Mr. Hamdi should get an opportunity to rebut the government's case for detaining him before a neutral party. Four court members would have released him, arguing his detention was unlawful.

The communications planning document, prepared jointly by the Pentagon and the Justice Department, only once mentions the possibility of decisions unfavorable to the Bush administration. In that case, it says the administration, as it put it, should "be prepared to have supporters outside the Departments of Defense and Justice carry the standard by engaging with the media to decry this miscarriage of justice."

In case of a positive decision, the document urged officials, quoting again, to "ensure maximum media coverage to overcome those who will continue to criticize the detention of enemy combatants.”

So far, officials at both the Justice Department and the Pentagon, seeking to put the best possible face on the rulings, have only noted the high court affirmed the President'sauthority to detain enemy combatants in the war on terrorism.

Hurdles and Horses: A Soweto Story

The road to the top -- whether in politics, business, or sports -- is never easy. That has been especially true for blacks in South Africa who lived through the apartheid era. While living in Johannesburg, I had this story in February 1998 of one South African whose life had been -- and still remained -- a struggle to jump barriers.

The boy's face flashes fear and joy as the weary but spirited horse jumps -- and strikes the low barrier. But horse and rider recover -- to the relief of their instructor, who shouts his Encouragement.

“That's better. Yes.”

It is Sunday morning practice at what may be the most unusual riding academy in the world. Equestrian sports are usually the province of the rich and privileged living in lush suburban communities. But this school for aspiring show jumpers is in Soweto, South Africa's famous black township.

It is the dream of one man, Enos Mafokate.

“I want to see this thing happen because if you look at it, it's the only black township in the world who's got this kind of thing -- nowhere else do you find it, nowhere else!”

To be truthful, it is not much of a facility despite Mr. Mafokate's enthusiasm. The grassy training area is small and slanted and next to a noisy road. The stalls are rudimentary at best and the equipment for horses and riders is largely a collection of well-worn hand-me-downs.

But on this morning, about 20 children, some of them from a nearby orphanage, are waiting patiently for their turn to spend a few minutes on one of the two aging horses available for practice. Some are complete novices who have never sat on a horse before. Others are advanced enough to be practicing jumps. Still others are actually involved in competition in South Africa -- and Mr. Mafokate, the first black South African rider ever to compete internationally, is their model and their biggest booster.

“They're saying a black child can't do it. That's absolutely nonsense. If he's got a chance -- if I'd got the chance, black children have today, I would be more than I am today. But because I was standing behind the jumping ring and watching them (whites) doing it, dying inside and I couldn't ride inside for so many years and that put me down (depressed me).”

It has not been easy for Mr. Mafokate -- now or in the past. Aside from a few benefactors like the man who owns the grounds where the school is located, Mr. Mafokate complains about getting little support from the Soweto community.

“My society, they're really not supporting me the way they are supposed to do it, because if you look at the other development, they are doing a lot for boxing, rugby. But on the horse side, there is really nothing happening.”

Still, Enos Mafokate struggles on as he approaches his 54th birthday -- spending much of the modest salary from his job with Soweto's animal protection society on the care and feeding of his handful of horses, their transport to shows, entry fees, and the training of youngsters. Many of them cannot even afford the nine rand or less than two dollar monthly training fee he asks.

Mr. Mafokate got his start in riding on a donkey as a small child. The first horse he rode was owned by a white family his father worked for. He admits he was more interested in playing soccer back as a youth. But a love for horses led him to a job as a stable worker.

In 1962, one of the most prestigious riding clubs in the Johannesburg area held a special riding competition for black grooms. Mr. Mafokate won -- and he kept on winning in the years thereafter -- riding the expensive horses of his white patrons but only in competitions involving other blacks.

That was until 1980, when he was privately sponsored on a European tour and won competitions in England and Wales. He is still competing -- and winning. But his attention now is focused on training a new crop of black riding champions.

“That's better...heels down...”

Ten-year-old Arnold Boitumelo, an aspiring jockey and son of a Soweto factory worker, already has visions of trophies and ribbons dancing in his head. He gets support from his father and one of his brothers, but gives credit to Enos.

“Many people know how to ride horses just because Enos teach them how to ride horses.”

Young Arnold has big dreams. But so does Enos Mafokate. His involve a bigger and better riding center and the goal of seeing one of the children he has trained compete in the Olympics.

Iraq Memories: “The Hunt Isn't Over Until The Head is on the Wall”

After close to a quarter-century of rule, Saddam Hussein's regime was collapsing this month five years ago --- much like the Iraqi leader's statues were in Baghdad and elsewhere. But as I reported at the time, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said there was important unfinished business for the US led coalition forces involved in Operation Iraqi Freedom.

Mr. Rumsfeld is understandably pleased with the progress made by US led coalition troops in just three weeks of operations inside Iraq. He says the fear is lifting for most Iraqis and their long-time leader is being consigned to the dustbin of history.

“Saddam Hussein is now taking his rightful place alongside Hitler, Stalin, Lenin, Ceausescu in the pantheon of failed, brutal dictators, and the Iraqi people are well on their way to freedom.”

But even Mr. Rumsfeld concedes there is unfinished business in Iraq --- some of it involving Saddam.

“We still must capture, account for, or otherwise deal with Saddam Hussein and his sons and the senior Iraqi leadership.”

Coalition air forces tried to kill Saddam at least twice --- the latest attempt this week in a Baghdad residential area. But it remains unclear whether the Iraqi leader was actually there and survived, or whether he was killed or perhaps incapacitated.

Rumors abound --- including suggestions he may have already fled the country or is in hiding, possibly in a foreign embassy in Baghdad. Mr. Rumsfeld says he does not know --- but he does not minimize the difficulty of the task of determining Saddam's fate.

“It is hard to find a single person. It is hard to find them when they're alive and mobile, it's hard to find them when they're not well, and it's hard to find them if they're buried under rubble. We don't know. And he's not been around. He's not active. Therefore, he's either dead or he's incapacitated, or he's healthy and cowering in some tunnel some place, trying to avoid being caught. What else can one say?”

Mr. Rumsfeld declines to predict whether coalition forces will capture him. Only time will tell, he says. But the US government is now offering rewards for information about Iraq's fugitive leaders.

“We're asking people to come forward and help in this effort. Rewards are available to those who help us prevent the disappearance of personnel, documentation and materials. Good lives and a better future are possible for those who turn themselves in and choose to cooperate with coalition forces.”

Mr. Rumsfeld also says he wants to secure Iraq's borders to prevent the flight of any high-ranking regime officials. Special attention will be paid to the border with Syria. Mr. Rumsfeld is already accusing authorities in Damascus of helping Iraqi officials escape --- though he makes clear the suspected escapees so far do not include Saddam, his sons or Iraq's other senior personalities.

Determining Saddam's fate is clearly important. He has cast a long and fearsome shadow over Iraq. His supporters could fight on in the absence of indisputable proof that he is dead or a coalition prisoner. Some Iraqis may be reluctant to cooperate with the coalition or any new interim Iraqi authority, fearing Saddam may somehow survive and seek retribution, just as he has in the past.

As one senior military official puts it, "the hunt isn't over until the head is on the wall."

Note: Saddam was captured in December 2003. He was executed in December 2006.

Iraq Memories: No Plans for a Long-Term Occupation?

The fighting in Iraq was essentially over five years ago this month. But US ground combat forces continued to flow into the country to keep the peace. Still, as I reported at the time, Pentagon officials were adamant about the United States having no plans for any long-term occupation.

The initial package of US ground combat forces that fought their way to Baghdad numbered around 100-thousand. Now, Pentagon officials say, the size of the ground component is closer to 150-thousand --- even though hostilities are all but over.

Army Brigadier General Vincent Brooks of the military's Central Command says US ships and planes are heading home but the ongoing ground force build-up is needed to ensure security in Iraq.

“At the same time, we increase much of our presence on the ground. And that's required to be able to expand the physical presence that's required to create the conditions of stability and to provide security as required. And so you see a different flow happening with many of the land-component forces.”

The current force flow, as the military calls it, has always been part of the war plan for Iraq. It has only been modified to eliminate some elements that commanders no longer think are needed. That means the continuing build-up is, in fact smaller than anticipated.

But Defense officials are adamant that there is no long-term US plan for occupying Iraq. While they cannot predict how long American troops will have to stay, they insist it will not be one day longer than necessary.

To underscore that commitment, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld moved aggressively this week to knock down a published news report suggesting the Pentagon is seeking long-term access to as many as four bases in Iraq. The report, in the New York Times, quoted senior Bush administration officials as saying it would allow Washington to project American influence into the heart of an unsettled region.

But Mr. Rumsfeld said it was not only false but unhelpful.

“There haven't been decisions made, there haven't been conclusions reached, and it's just a fact that the implication that, as it says here, that the United States is planning along-term military relationship with an emerging government of Iraq -- there isn't even an emerging government to plan it with at the present time -- one that would grant the Pentagon access to military bases -- a subject that has not come up with anybodysenior -- and "project American influence into the heart of the unsettled" region -- I mean, not so! Not so! And I would say enormously unhelpful...The impression that's left around the world is that we plan to occupy the country, we plan to use their bases over the long period of time, and it's flat false.”

Mr. Rumsfeld acknowledges the administration is re-evaluating the US military footprint in the Gulf region. But he suggests there are sufficient alternative bases available to make consideration of new sites in Iraq unnecessary.

Still, it was the Bush administration's own National Security Strategy document issued last September that indicated an interest in expanding, not reducing, the US military presence abroad. The 31-page document called the presence of American forces overseas "one of the most profound symbols of the US commitments to allies and friends."

It went on to assert that to help "contend with uncertainty" and "meet the many security challenges" faced by the administration, the United States -- quoting now --- "will require bases and stations" not only in Western Europe, Japan and South Korea but other places. It said the United States would also need what are termed "temporary access arrangements for the long-distance deployment of US forces."

The strategy paper did not specify any other locations. But since the September 11th terrorist attacks on New York and Washington, the United States has secured access to a host of new bases --- mainly in Central Asia and Eastern Europe. It has now added, at least temporarily, bases in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Iraq Five Years Ago: The Futile Hunt for WMD Escalates

Five years ago this month, the Pentagon was preparing to intensify its hunt for Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. As I reported at the time, officials planned to dispatch about one-thousand experts to the country, including some former UN weapons inspectors.

The stepped-up search will be conducted by the Iraq Survey Group, a largely civilian team that will be led by an as-yet unidentified general. Pentagon sources say the group will include scientists, technicians, intelligence experts and others. They will bring equipment that will enable them to conduct field analyses of chemical and biological samples.

The team will include members of the military's 75th Exploitation Task Force, which is already in Iraq and conducting a weapons hunt. Until now, this unit has taken samples from suspected weapons sites, and sent them out of the country for detailed study.

It is unclear when the expanded group will go to Iraq. Pentagon sources say security is a major consideration, because many of the experts, in the words of one official, are "national treasures not to be risked."

The disclosure of the Pentagon's intention to ramp up the hunt is clearly intended to knock down emerging suspicions that, because no weapons of mass destruction have been found so far, the Bush administration may be de-emphasizing Iraq's disarmament as one of the main reasons for the war.

Chief Pentagon spokesperson Victoria Clarke tells reporters such claims are wrong --- whether they involve the hunt for weapons of mass destruction, fugitive Iraqi leaders andother mission objectives.

“I think, if you look at what we're doing, we continue to root out the remnants, whatever is left, of Iraqi regime influence, or whatever is left there that want to keep the Iraqi people from starting to rebuild their country. We want to find and destroy the WMD. We want to root out those terrorists that are there. We want to find intel (intelligence) on terrorist connections. And we want to help the Iraqi people transition to a more representative government.”

Pentagon sources say the Iraq Survey Group will do more than just search for chemical and biological weapons. They say members of the team will also be involved in the hunt for terrorist connections in Iraq and evidence of war crimes committed by Saddam Hussein's ousted regime. At the moment, defense officials say front-line troops in Iraq are first to have contact with suspected weapons sites or documents and other evidence. They are usually followed by members of the specialized exploitation unit already in Iraq, who send in survey teams for further study.

The newer, larger group that plans to go in will follow up on some of the site visits already carried out. But Pentagon sources say they will also work off a list of suspect sites assembled by US intelligence agencies. In addition, they will work off leads provided during the debriefings of Iraqi scientists, as well as tips from other Iraqis.

Speaking to Pentagon employees, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld says he believes Iraqis will provide the breakthrough clues.

“I don't think we'll discover anything, myself. I think, what will happen is, we'll discover people who will tell us where to go find it. It is not like a treasure hunt, where you just run around, hoping you find something. I just don't think that will happen. The (UN) inspectors didn't find anything, and I doubt we will.”

If any chemical or biological weapons are found, Mr. Rumsfeld acknowledges, he is concerned some countries and critics will claim the United States planted them. He says the teams will take care to validate their finds, much the way evidence is handled in criminal cases, to ensure it is not tainted. But Mr. Rumsfeld says critics will still tell what he terms lies -- much like Iraq's discredited former information minister. He suggests there is little the administration will be able to do about it.

Iraq Five Years Ago: What We Now See in Retrospect as One of the Great Mistakes

With Iraq's regime defeated, its leaders either dead, captured or on the run and the country's major cities taken, US led coalition forces five years ago this month were starting to clean up the lingering vestiges of Saddam Hussein's rule. As I reported at the time, that included what Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld called the "de-Baathification" of Iraq --- the elimination of Saddam's political party.

The war in Iraq is essentially over, though questions remain about the whereabouts of Saddam Hussein and the weapons of mass destruction the Pentagon says his regime has hidden.

But the winding down of combat means attention can shift now to Iraq's political future. And Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld says that is primarily a responsibility for the Iraqi people themselves.

“The specific institutions of a new Iraqi government will be decided by Iraqis. A free society should really not be imposed from the outside. We can help by bringing Iraqis together and by helping to create conditions of stability and security that arenecessary for a free society to take root. But building a free Iraq is the right -- and indeed the responsibility -- of the Iraqi people.”

A first step took place Tuesday in southern Iraq where about 80 members of anti-Saddam groups from inside and outside Iraq gathered to discuss plans for the country's future. At the end of the US backed meeting in Nasiriyah, the participants issued a 13-point statement insisting the government of post-war Iraq must be democratic and inclusive of all Iraqis.

The statement also called for the dissolution of the Baath party -- the party of Saddam Hussein. Not all Iraqi groups took part. A key Shiite organization refused to attend.

Speaking at the Pentagon, Mr. Rumsfeld tells reporters the boycott does not trouble him.

“What's going to happen is it's going to get sorted out on the ground, and that's fine. People demonstrate in the United States and boycott political rallies and things; that's what free people do. And it ought not to come as a surprise. Our attitude about it is that the Iraqis are going to have to sort this out.”

But not entirely on their own. Mr. Rumsfeld makes clear the Bush administration will require Iraq's new, emerging leaders to agree not to threaten the country's neighbors or the world with weapons of mass destruction; they will also have to guarantee the rights of religious and ethnic groups and permit political freedom and individual liberty.

“It ought to be a country that doesn't have weapons of mass destruction and doesn't threaten its neighbors, and if there are people who think it ought to, then our preference is that they not participate. It ought to be a country that sets itself on a path towards a government that is responsive to the people and respectful of minorities and different -- the diversity in the country, of religious diversity and ethnic diversity. And if people want to have a different kind of government, then we'd prefer they not participate. Beyond that, we would -- we'd also prefer that people not participate who basically don't represent Iraq, but who think they represent some of the neighboring countries. And that would -- that's an unhelpful thing, it seems to me.”

Mr. Rumsfeld calls those "the standards" and he appears to hope the United States will not have to take any kind of a heavy-handed approach to ensure they are followed -- leaving the policing to Iraqis.

“We just keep repeating the conditions, and the people will do the vetting. People on the ground know these folks. They know the bad ones.”

But he says the Baath Party will definitely have to go --- just like the Nazi Party after World War Two. Having previously likened Saddam Hussein to Hitler, that should come as no surprise.

Iraq Five Years Ago: The Agony of Donald “Freedom's untidy” Rumsfeld

Anyone who thought Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld was not capable of great passion knew better after an unusually animated news briefing five years ago when reporters suggested looting was casting a shadow over the success of Operation Iraqi Freedom.

Instead of focusing on the progress of the war, the hunt for fugitive Iraqi leaders or the effort to uncover chemical weapons, reporters started in with questions on looting and other signs of lawlessness in Baghdad and elsewhere.

It did not take long for Mr. Rumsfeld to react --- and react sharply, condemning the reporting as exaggerated.

“I picked up a newspaper today and I couldn't believe it. I read eight headlines that talked about chaos, violence, unrest. And it just was Henny Penny -- "The sky is falling." I've never seen anything like it! And here is a country that's being liberated, here are people who are going from being repressed and held under the thumb of a vicious dictator, and they're free. And all this newspaper could do, with eight or 10 headlines, they showed a man bleeding, a civilian, who they claimed we had shot – one thing after another. It's just unbelievable how people can take that away from what is happening in that country!”

What's more, Mr. Rumsfeld charges some images of looting on television are being played again and again, conveying the wrong impression.

“The images you are seeing on television you are seeing over and over and over, and it's the same picture of some person walking out of some building with a vase, and you see it 20 times and you think, "My goodness, were there that many vases?" (Laughter.) "Is it possible that there were that many vases in the whole country?"”

Mr. Rumsfeld says no one condones looting and he says US and coalition forces are moving to halt it, together with concerned Iraqis. But the way Mr. Rumsfeld sees it, some lawlessness is understandable among the Iraqi people because, he says, they have been repressed for years.

He says the liberation of those pent-up emotions can lead to what he calls an untidy period.

“Freedom's untidy. And free people are free to make mistakes and commit crimes and do bad things. They're also free to live their lives and do wonderful things. And that's what's going to happen here.”

The issue of whether there are sufficient coalition troops in Iraq to conduct policing operations was never raised.

But Mr. Rumsfeld says more troops are moving into the Baghdad area and elsewhere. He also says an overnight curfew has been imposed in the Iraqi capital.

Mr. Rumsfeld professed to being fascinated with the reporters' barrage of questions on civil disorder. But it is not the first time he has been critical of the news media.

Earlier this week, he took issue with Arab news reports which he charged were conveying false impressions about the purpose of the US led intervention in Iraq. In that case, he accused them of carrying messages suggesting the operation was a war against the Iraqi people as opposed to one against a dictator. He says there were also Arab media suggestions it was a war against Islam, which he says was also untrue.

At the time, Mr. Rumsfeld said he hoped those false images would be counterbalanced by upbeat scenes of jubilant Iraqis welcoming coalition troops. But it seems even those images, in Mr. Rumsfeld's eyes, have been tarnished by the latest ones of looting.

In Memoriam

There is newly-(re)opened museum focused on the news business in Washington. It’s called, appropriately, the Newseum. One of its features is a memorial honoring journalists who have been killed in the line of duty. It lists the names of 1,843 reporters, broadcasters and photographers from around the world who died between 1837 and 2007.

I worked with two of the reporters whose names are on the memorial, a kind of glass wall in an almost chapel-like setting on the Newseum’s third floor. I stopped in this week to sit a while and remember these colleagues.

One was Hitoshi Numasawa of Japan’s Kyodo new service. He was Kyodo’s bureau chief in Nairobi. He was killed on Dec. 6, 1994 when a small plane he was flying in struck a television tower in bad weather shortly after takeoff from Nairobi's Wilson Airport. He was en route to Goma in the Congo (then called Zaire), where Japanese troops had been deployed in the aftermath of the Rwandan genocide. One of his sons and one of mine were best buddies.

The other name etched on the memorial that I wanted to honor is that of Dan Eldon, a young British-American photographer who was working for the Reuters news service in Somalia when I met him. He was killed on July 12th, 1993 in Mogadishu by an enraged mob as he tried to cover a US attack on supporters of a Somali warlord.

The Journalists Memorial used to be located in the Newseum when that building was located in Arlington, Virginia, across the Potomac River from Washington. Speaking at a ceremony at the memorial there in 2006, a senior US television executive, ABC News President David Westin, said we honor the meaning of the lives and deaths of journalists “by taking to heart every day what they have shown us about the importance of reporting the news.”

He went on: “They believed that the good of their country, their community, and their fellow citizens depends on people knowing as much of the truth as they could find and report.”

We honor you, Toshi and Dan.

Rwanda: A Time to Remember

We began this blog a year ago to mark the anniversary of the start of the Rwandan genocide. Since then, we’ve gone from Rwanda to Sudan and Somalia, to Burundi and the Congo, Mozambique and Angola, Zimbabwe and scores of other destinations. We’ve taken a look at the Iraq war as it started five years ago and also the claim Iraq was seeking uranium in Africa. We plan to explore the US war on terror in Africa in the coming weeks, along with an African nuclear reactor security issue. But today, in memory of the victims of the Rwandan genocide on the 14th anniversary of the killings, we return to where we started and the visit I made to a massacre site soon after the bloodshed erupted. I post no photo. The images generated by these words are as vivid to me today as then. This is the transcript of what I saw and dictated live-to-tape in 1994:

We've just driven several kilometers along a dirt road north from the Rwandan town of Rusumo and we've arrived in a small town called Nyarubuye. And right here on the ground in front of me is the decomposed corpse of a child -- its skull bleached white, its dress still lying on what's left of the body. In the tall grass, another body. Here even more. This body has been flatted, its skull crushed...

These bodies are lying in front of a church. Just in the courtyard here in front of the church I can count ten bodies. Assorted bodyparts. There's a decapitated child. We're now about to go into the church itself and right at the steps is a body.

And inside the church are several more bodies, again badly decomposed. There are none on the altar but in the sacristy behind the altar it's clear the building was ransacked, looted, priests' vestments cast about.

Obviously people fled here to take shelter and obviously they didn't find it.

In the gardens outside the church are spectacular flowers, amaryllis, marigold, daisies, a huge explosion of color and just down the steps from those plants more bodies. A mother and her child. The child appears to have been decapitated.

The entire complex appears to have been ransacked, looted, papers with the church's symbol on it scattered about, drawers emptied, cloth material just ripped apart and again more corpses. And flies. And here what seem to be shotgun shells, cartridges from shotgun shells which raises, of course, the question of whether some of these people were blasted.

In this small room, there are some wooden crucifixes on the floor and what is left of the body of a small baby.

Our guides have told us that in the direction we're heading now outside the church complex there is a place where there are many bodies and they're right. In front of me I can see a dozen corpses in one group. They appear to be mainly women, some children.

The stench is really overwhelming and I've put a mask on so that may muffle my voice. But in this courtyard there are easily a hundred bodies, all of them very badly decomposed, many with obvious hack marks.

And here is a room of horror, dozens upon dozens of bodies, piled on one another. I think it's fair to say there are hundreds of dead here. Well there's three rooms that must contain about 250 bodies. That's not counting the 100 in this courtyard and there are still rooms we have not seen. And everywhere, flies.

This village we are told by a woman who lives here -- and still lives here -- was a predominantly Tutsi village and that this massacre was carried out by predominantly Hutu Interahamwe, the dreaded militia whose name is so associated with the unspeakable atrocities of this war...

For a place of such idyllic beauty, it will certainly be remembered for one of the most unspeakable horrors of this war."

Iraq Five Years Ago: It’s The Arab Media’s Fault

Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld says there is no question but that some Arab news media have tried to convey what he considers a "false" impression about the US led military operation in Iraq. Five years ago this month I reported on Mr. Rumsfeld's frustrations, and hopes.

Mr. Rumsfeld says there is no evidence that inaccurate reporting has stirred up greater anti-American sentiment among Muslims, raising the potential terrorist threat to USinterests.

But there is no mistaking Mr. Rumsfeld's frustration over Arab reporting he views as misleading:

“There is no question but that there are a number of, particularly television stations, as well as print, in that part of the world [Mideast] that have carried a message that wasfalse. They have carried a message that tried to lead people in that part of the world to believe that we were fighting Iraq and the Iraqi people, as opposed to a vicious dictator; that we were anti-a (particular) religion, which is totally untrue.”

The Defense Secretary says he hopes the images he considers false will be counter-balanced by upbeat images of jubilant Iraqis cheering coalition forces in the streets of Baghdad and elsewhere.

Most importantly, he says he hopes the proof of US intentions will be clear when coalition troops finish their mission and leave Iraq.

“The test is in the tasting. The United States is not going to stay in that country and occupy it. We have plenty of other things that our people like to do with their lives, and we do not make it a practice of going out and seeking someone else's wealth or real estate. So, we will do our job, we will do it well. And we will leave as that country is set on a path to guide its own future.”

Despite reports that many Iraqis are still mistrustful and that many Arabs remain skeptical about Operation Iraqi Freedom, Mr. Rumsfeld believes the truth will eventually come out.

“Truth ultimately finds it way to people's ears and eyes and hearts. And I don't worry about that over the long term. Does it make me sad to see television saying things that are flat not true, and people printing things in that part of the world that's flat not true, children being taught things that are flat not true? Yes, it bothers me. But what can one do except to tell the truth, behave in a way that's consistent with our values?”

But for many top Pentagon officials, it remains a matter of concern and frustration that there is criticism in the Arab and Muslim world about recent US military operations.

General Richard Myers, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff of the armed forces, wonders why people fail to acknowledge coalition efforts aimed at assisting predominantly Muslim populations.

“I think the thing that the folks ought to notice out in the region [Mideast], that it was the United States and our coalition partners who wanted to put our blood and treasure onthe line for a couple of large Muslim populations: one in Afghanistan, and now in Iraq.”

Although the initial objectives in both countries were different, General Myers says in the long run, the goals are the same: providing a stable and secure environment and a chance for self-governance.

But that will not happen overnight. Even Pentagon officials concede swaying skeptical Arab minds may prove difficult the longer US forces remain there.

In Iraq itself, some help may be provided by the so-called Free Iraqi Forces, Iraqis trained by US troops to assist in civil affairs and humanitarian aid efforts. There are only 69 ofthese soldiers. But their commander, Army Brigadier General John Kern, says they are receiving a good reception from Iraqis.

“We have not found any distrust at all, really, and what I do and what my civil affairs soldiers have done is put them out in a crowd and let them talk for a while.”

General Kern says he wishes he had a lot more of these Free Iraqi Forces. While up to three-thousand were scheduled for training this year, the program has already been shut down, overtaken by the war.

Iraq Five Years Ago: A Bad Day for Journalists

It was a grim day for journalists covering the war in Iraq five years ago on April 8th with at least three killed and three others wounded --- all the casualties apparently the result of US military fire in Baghdad. In the wake of the incidents, the military and the media were taking different perspectives about what happened.

Here at the Pentagon, a senior defense official inundated with questions about the deaths of reporters in Baghdad turns to a reporter and poses his own question. And it goes like this: "how many American soldiers have to get killed before it's OK to fire back at hostile forces shielding themselves among journalists?"

But the US based Committee to Protect Journalists is gravely concerned about the US strikes on what it says were known media locations in Baghdad --- the offices of the Qatar-based Al-Jazeera network and Abu Dhabi TV as well as the Palestine Hotel, where scores of international journalists are based.

The CPJ has sent a letter to Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, stressing journalists are civilians and protected under international humanitarian law. It also says they "cannot be deliberately targeted." The journalists group goes on to add that even if hostile fire was coming from the locations targeted by US forces, the American response was disproportionate --- using a tank, for example, to fire on the Palestine Hotel, allegedly to take out a sniper or snipers.

American commanders insist journalists are not being intentionally targeted in Iraq. But they do say coalition forces on the ground in Baghdad reported coming under what they say was significant enemy fire from the locations where the journalists were located. The US Central Command links the incidents to what it calls the Iraqi regime's strategy of using civilian facilities for military purposes. But it also says the events serve as a tragic reminder of just how dangerous life is on the battlefield.

Victoria Clarke is the chief spokesperson for the Pentagon:

“We are at war, there is fighting going on in Baghdad. Our forces came under fire. They exercised their inherent right to self-defense. We go out of our way to avoid civilians. We go out of our way to help and protect journalists. That's been repeated again and again and again. But I personally have probably had 300 individual conversations with news organizations and bureau chiefs and some individual correspondents, and the essence ofevery one of those is war is a dangerous, dangerous business, and you're not safe when you're in a war zone.”

So far in Iraq, in addition to the latest fatalities in Baghdad, at least eight others have been killed in action, including two journalists traveling with US forces. They were a Spanish newspaper correspondent and a German reporter, both of whom died in an Iraqi missile attack.

Note: 127 journalists and 50 media workers have been killed in Iraq since March 2003

Iraq Five Years Ago: Sitting in Saddam’s Palace, Pondering What Comes Next

Five years ago, US soldiers were sitting in some of Saddam Hussein's Baghdad palaces and the Iraqi leader was nowhere to be seen. But senior defense officials weren't ready to declare victory yet. Still, as I reported at the time, they were turning some of their attention to the next phase of Operation Iraqi Freedom and that was, what comes after Saddam --- now seen as a key failing of the entire venture.

Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld says, as the US led coalition makes military progress in Iraq, the Iraqi people, in his words, are losing their fear of Saddam Hussein's regime.

He says many are daring for the first time to imagine life without the Iraqi leader. Mr. Rumsfeld says that time is coming --- and soon.

“Let me assure all Iraqis listening today that life without Saddam Hussein is not a distant dream. Coalition forces will not stop until they have accomplished their mission, and they will remove Saddam Hussein from power and give Iraq back to the Iraqi people.”

Mr. Rumsfeld says the United States and its coalition partners want to help prepare for an early and smooth transition to a new Iraqi government chosen by the Iraqi people. But moving to cut off criticism about just how much involvement the Bush administration will have in choosing Iraq's new government, he specifically denied the United States, or the Pentagon, is already casting its vote for opposition Iraqi National Congress leader Ahmad Chalabi.

Listen to this exchange with a reporter at a Pentagon briefing.

REPORTER: Well, do you endorse Ahmad Chalabi for any role?

RUMSFELD: Of course not. I just said that the Iraqi people are going to make these decisions. Clearly, the United States is not going to impose a government on Iraq.

Nevertheless, a senior Pentagon official acknowledges the US military recently "assisted" in moving Mr. Chalabi and several hundred Iraqi opposition fighters into southern Iraq. The official tells me those fighters are also being given weapons and other equipment.

But defense officials stress they are also cooperating with several other opposition groups.

Still, the questioning led Mr. Rumsfeld to launch what was effectively a pre-emptive strike against critics, recalling earlier skepticism about the war plan for Iraq were proven wrong.

“You know, what's happened here is we've seen people go from debating the war plan they haven't read, and the number of troops and all of that, now they're debating the form of the government, which no one has decided, and what the post-Saddam Hussein regime exercise, activity, organization ought to look like.”

In the meantime, though, Mr. Rumsfeld says he isn't yet ready to declare victory --- something which he says he expects later rather than sooner. But he says Saddam Hussein's regime is collapsing around him and the Iraqi leader is either dead, injured or simply unwilling to show himself.

And while his whereabouts are unclear, Mr. Rumsfeld says Saddam no longer runs much of Iraq and his regime, in the Defense Secretary's words, "is running out of soldiers."

A senior Pentagon official indicates there is hope some of those remaining Iraqi soldiers will take matters into their own hands, and topple Saddam themselves --- a coup that would save coalition troops the effort of hunting down the elusive Iraqi leader themselves.

Iraq Five Years Ago: Saddam Re-emerges And No One Cares

Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein resurfaced five years ago after disappearing from public view when the war started. But as far as top Defense Department officials are concerned, it hardly matters anymore. As I reported from the Pentagon at the time, the man long demonized as a dictator is now being painted as an almost pathetic figure.

For two weeks, Pentagon officials have said they did not know whether Saddam Hussein was dead, alive or incapacitated after a coalition airstrike aimed at Iraqi leaders at the outset of the war.

Now Iraqi television has broadcast images of Saddam in the streets of Baghdad and delivering a speech alluding to war-related events, his first public appearance since the start of the war and the first indication that he apparently survived the attack.

But Pentagon officials appear distinctly unmoved by his reappearance. In much the same way that a top official said that Baghdad was isolated militarily and hence almost irrelevant, they are saying Saddam's possible re-emergence is equally irrelevant because his regime no longer has any significant control over the country.

This is how chief Pentagon spokeswoman Victoria Clarke put it when asked about the television broadcasts showing Saddam.

“What really matters is not whether or not he's dead or alive, but the fact that whoever is left in this regime, whatever is left of the regime leadership, got up today and realized they have less and less control of their country. They have less and less control of just about everything in that country, and that's what's significant. And what we're focused on is ending the regime.”

Major General Stanley McChrystal of the Pentagon's Joint Staff tells reporters he found it interesting that the Iraqi leader felt it necessary to emerge. But the General says there is little evidence Saddam has any effective control over what is left of Iraq's military.

“And we find it interesting that Saddam Hussein, if he is alive, feels the need to walk in the street to prove that. What we don't see is effective command and control from his level. We do see some sort of regime command and control, but effective military command and control, which has normally emanated from the core of the regime, has not been apparent on the battlefield.”

In addition to severing critical military communications links and taking down most of Iraq's broadcasting capabilities, the US led coalition has devastated Iraq's premier fighting units, the Republican Guards. According to the Pentagon, of six Republican Guard divisions, two have been essentially destroyed and the other four significantly degraded in terms of their combat effectiveness.

US military officials say more Iraqi troops are surrendering. They hope more will do so but are also hoping some may attempt to rise up against Saddam and his closest supporters, finishing off the work begun by the coalition.

In the meantime, the defense department is refusing to say whether coalition troops have been issued any special instructions on what to do if they encounter Saddam, his sons orother top Iraqi officials. But despite the effort to publicly paint him as irrelevant, one Pentagon official says that clearly the Bush administration would love to capture Saddam alive and take him into custody for war crimes prosecution.

Iraq Five Years Ago: They Won’t Stay Long Enough?

Pentagon officials have said repeatedly US forces do not intend to permanently occupy Iraq. But they concede many Iraqis appear reluctant to embrace Operation IraqiFreedom out of fear the coalition will not stay long enough. I wrote this five years ago this month.

With Baghdad isolated and Saddam Hussein portrayed as no longer in control, Pentagon officials say more and more Iraqis are beginning to breathe sighs of relief.

This is how Chief Pentagon spokeswoman Victoria Clarke puts it:

“The fear and the terror is starting to evaporate in Iraq. Many of them feel free enough to cheer the arrival of the coalition forces.”

At a Pentagon news briefing, Ms. Clarke went on to note a story in the New York Times which said Iraqis were rushing out to greet coalition troops. She quoted the story as saying people were crying out repeatedly, 'Thank you.' But, as she notes, the article says the crowd also had questions.

“Two questions dominated the crowd: "Will you stay?" and "Can you tell me what time Saddam is finished?"”

A senior Pentagon official says these twin concerns may be responsible for the fact that thus far there have been few such scenes of exuberant Iraqis welcoming US led soldiers. On the one hand, the official notes, Saddam has demonstrated an extraordinary capability to survive throughout his years in power.

At the same time, the United States has demonstrated a track record on interventions abroad that for Iraqis, the official says, may not be convincing. The official points to Lebanon, Somalia and Haiti but says, perhaps most importantly for Iraqis, US led forces "abandoned the Shiites" after the 1991 Gulf War -- a war in which US troops also did not press on to Baghdad after driving Iraqi soldiers out of Kuwait.

With the current coalition still not in absolute control of much of the country, even Pentagon spokeswoman Clarke concedes Iraqis may face continued suffering at the hands of Saddam's loyalists.

“It's quite possible that what's left of the Iraqi regime will continue or even escalate their horrible tactics of using civilians as hostages and shields for their own protection.”

Ms. Clarke says the regime is fooling nobody and its end is inevitable. But the senior official says for Iraqis "this is a life or death matter," and it may explain why many Iraqis are reluctant to come forward and embrace Operation Iraqi Freedom.

Still, the Pentagon says more are now beginning to offer assistance to the coalition, including intelligence information on where Saddam loyalist forces may be located.

Perhaps the most notable example of cooperation has come in the city of Nasariyah, where an Iraqi lawyer identified only as Mohammad provided information that led to the successful rescue of an injured and possibly tortured American prisoner of war, Army Private First Class Jessica Lynch. Mohammad and his family have since been evacuated to a secure location and promised refugee status in the United States.

Iraq Five Years Ago: The Battle for Baghdad

The battle for Baghdad appeared to be under way five years ago --- and as I noted at the time it likely marked the beginning of the end for the Iraqi leadership. But while thousands of Iraqi soldiers --- including at least seven generals --- had already surrendered, there had been no signs that the government of Saddam Hussein was prepared to capitulate.

The battle for Baghdad is the final threat to the core of the Iraqi leadership --- a regime whose dominant figures have disappeared from public view, whose strategic sites have been pounded by airstrikes and whose control over the country and its military forces has been severely weakened.

Yet, despite repeated appeals to senior Iraqi leaders and military commanders to surrender, no one appears to have come forward yet from the capital to discuss capitulation.

Chief Pentagon spokeswoman Victoria Clarke says one problem could be that no one is clearly in charge. Another could be the stated coalition demand for unconditional surrender.

“Who knows who's in charge? We just don't know who is in charge. We have made it very, very clear what our expectations are...it doesn't seem likely at this stage that someone's going to come forward.”

Yet Ms. Clarke says the predicament of the Iraqi leadership should be clear.

“Oh, I think they probably understand their predicament. We just haven't seen somebody come forward and say, 'Let's stop this'.”

Senior military officials believe the reason this has not yet happened is that those top leaders still alive in Baghdad are clinging to some hope --- not of any military victory but of bogging US led forces down in a prolonged and bloody urban war. It's thought that could turn international public opinion against any further fighting and weaken US resolve. This, in turn, could lead to a settlement short of total, unconditional surrender.

Pentagon officials believe there have already been what amounts to test runs of brutal street fighting that have taken place on the road to Baghdad --- in places like Nasiriyah, where coalition units suffered some 20 dead, a dozen wounded and more than a dozen missing, some of whom ended up as prisoners paraded on Iraqi television.

The problems troops ran into in Nasiriyah included fake surrenders by Iraqis dressed in civilian clothes who then opened fire and ambushes in which Iraqi women were used as scouts to locate coalition positions. The difficulty of distinguishing Iraqi fighters from civilians led to numerous civilian deaths.

Defense officials wonder, if that could happen in Nasiriyah, with a population of about 500-thousand, what could happen to coalition soldiers who enter Baghdad, with a population of five million.

In the meantime, though, Ms. Clarke says there are growing signs that increasing numbers of Iraqis do see the writing on the wall. She says more and more are now offering direct assistance to coalition forces.

“We have seen some evidence and information that increasing numbers of Iraqi people are aware of what is going on. And I won't go into too many details of how we know that. But you could -- just evidenced by the people who are coming forward to help the coalition forces, I think they are getting a better sense that this regime is coming closer to its end.”

Still, senior defense officials including Ms. Clarke are warning of possibly difficult and challenging days ahead. The Pentagon spokeswoman says, quoting now, "we are not underestimating how tough it could be going forward."

Iraq Five Years Ago: Taunting Saddam While Bristling Over Osama

Five years ago, the mystery of Saddam Hussein's whereabouts remained a focus of attention at the Pentagon, where top officials continued to note the Iraqi leader's absence from public view. I tried from my post at the Pentagon to bring folks up to date on the taunting of a man viewed by the Bush administration as one of the most brutal dictators of modern times.

At the height of the US military operation in Afghanistan, defense officials bristled when reporters would ask about the whereabouts of al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden or Taleban head Mullah Mohamed Omar. They would quickly say the anti-terrorist operation in Afghanistan was never about any particular individual.


But in the case of Iraq and Operation Iraqi Freedom, it has been Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld who has been leading the questioning about whether Saddam Hussein is alive and still in power.

Aides to Mr. Rumsfeld admit it is a form of taunting. And the taunting took a sharp turn Tuesday after the Iraqi leader failed to show up in person to deliver a highly anticipated broadcast statement, instead leaving the job of reading it to Iraq's Information Minister.

Mr. Rumsfeld noted the event this way: “And where are Iraq's leaders? The night before the ground war began, coalition forces launched a strike on a meeting of Iraq's senior command and control. And they have not been heard from since. The fact that Saddam Hussein did not show up for his televised speech today is interesting.”

One senior Pentagon official theorizes Saddam may have been so badly hurt in the initial coalition airstrike that he could not be put on television convincingly. But Pentagon officials say for the record that they do not know whether Saddam or his sons are dead, alive or incapacitated.

What they do know is that none of them has been seen outside of ambiguous videotapes broadcast on Iraqi television. Additional pieces of the puzzle are surfacing, though. Defense officials note a longtime bodyguard never before seen away from Saddam's side, showed up last week on Iraqi TV with the country's Defense Minister. And they say some members of Saddam's family are known to have fled the country or to have tried to.

Now, Mr. Rumsfeld says rumors have surfaced in Baghdad, spread by unidentified Iraqi officials, that the allied coalition is interested in cease-fire negotiations and a possible peace deal. But the US Defense Secretary says there can be no deal short of unconditional surrender.

“The circumstance of the regime is such that Iraqi officials are spreading rumors that the coalition has entered into a cease-fire negotiation with the regime, and that there is athird party peace plan under consideration. Their goal is to try to convince the people of Iraq that the coalition does not intend to finish the job. Since this broadcast is sent intoIraq, let me say this to all Iraqis who are listening: the regime is not telling the truth, there are no negotiations taking place with anyone in Saddam Hussein's regime. There willbe no outcome to this war that leaves Saddam Hussein and his regime in power.”

Despite the doubts being cast about the Iraqi government's grip on power, Mr. Rumsfeld is remaining cautious about encouraging any popular revolts to finish the job startedby coalition forces. He says that is a decision Iraqis will have to make for themselves when the time is right.

“And I think that that's a call that the people in Iraq have to make. They're on the ground. It's their lives. They'll have to decide when they believe that their best circumstance is to join the fight as opposed to preserving their lives as long as they do not see that immediately they can be free and liberated.”

Meanwhile, intelligence officials suggest that if Saddam is not alive or is incapacitated, then the inner circle running what is left of his government has little future. They believe this group will succumb to infighting, perhaps even before allied soldiers can move on Baghdad. They also could be ousted in a coup by disgruntled troops who see no point in dying for a regime that Mr. Rumsfeld says has no future.